Cloud is the Gift That Keeps On Giving

Ultimately the CAPEX vs OPEX arguments over public and private cloud computing are irrelevant. Business-value is the only metric that really counts.

B

renda Michelson, Principal of Elemental Links, writes “elemental cloud computing” recently tweeted: “100k buys way more public, than private, cloud computing power” which started a short but inspiring conversation on the subject centering around the observation that “cloud is the gift that keeps on giving.” That’s alluding to the fact that the compute power purchased in “the cloud” is an annual expense, unlike private, cloud computing power which requires renewal at longer intervals, usually in the 3-5 year range.

Still, Brenda is right at least in the short term. $100,000 purchases a lot more compute power in a public cloud computing environment than it will/would/does in a private cloud computing environment. The problem is that $100,000 in a private cloud computing environment is likely to provide more business value than would a comparable investment in a public cloud computing environment. And that’s really the metric we should be using instead of CAPEX versus OPEX.

"You don't need to understand a virtualization product." Wow. That really depends on the environment. If you are building/packaging your own virtual images, then you had better understand the product you're using. If you're acquiring a solution that is already virtualized in a package it had better be manageable via existing management systems. And flexible? Yes. But in what way? Flexibility is a broad term and while I know exactly what you're getting at I'd like to see it better spelled out because I think you're denying/attributing flexibility without really considering what that means to a real network and its components.

I think *we* don't. I think the customer does. I think we provide the base information and let them decide. That's one of the reasons we used to provide customizable, weighted "report cards" on products at Network Computing when we did reviews: so readers could change the weights to reflect what was important to them and figure out the best solution for their particular needs.

There's more to an infrastructure than just ADCs. There's also switches and routers and security devices and WOCs and bandwidth management and a variety of other "legacy" hardware devices, many of which will never be provided in virtual form for any number of reasons.

I agree with your commentary re: developers and application logic. For testing/development, putting an ADC on their desktop is yes, a great idea, and I am all for that. But a 1:1 ratio between apps:adcs in a production environment would be both expensive and inefficient.

Word on the street is correct; someday being "the near future". It won't change my tune; I've said many times - developers and evaluators need the ability to play/test/evaluate more easily and a SoftADC addresses that need quite nicely.

Also, Izzy - I am truly offended by the implication that what I write is purely marketing driven and that my opinions, which is what this blog represents, will be somehow magically changed by the existence of a SoftADC. This is not the first time you've left a comment on a post containing such an implication.

What I write and when I write it is driven by one person: me. The only time there is external input is during a launch, and that goes only as far as incorporating new features/products/etc... and understanding what the corporate goals are for that launch as far as what the benefits/capabilities of new products/features may be. See "The Application Delivery Spell Book: Contingency" as an example of what I mean. This was driven by new iRules capabilities in our web application firewall, ASM, but it says absolutely nothing I haven't said before - nor anything with which I do not earnestly believe.

While this is no doubt a natural assumption given this is an F5 property and I am an employee - especially by someone who is part of a competitor's marketing engine - it is still incorrect and because this is the second time you've made such a comment I am responding to it. One of the reasons I truly enjoy working for F5 is I am never asked to compromise my opinion/thoughts on technology for the sake of "marketing". If my opinion would somehow damage or negatively influence a SoftADC offering - or any other product offering for that matter - I will simply not write on the subject.

Am I biased toward F5's solutions? You bet. Am I blindly supportive of every technology/decision made? Of course not. And I will not pen a single word that implies I agree with something when I do not or that isn't accurate to the best of my knowledge/ability. I have never done so in any role/position in the past and I am not about to start now.

Lori

0

About DevCentral

We are a community of 300,000+ technical peers who solve problems together.